CASE TITLE: G.R.

L-24919 January 28, 1980

JAMES HOWARD BOOTHE and JOHN MORTON, II, petitioners,

vs.
THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

PETITIONERS CLAIMS:

1. Their local application for a patent should be granted over Pfizer on

the same drug on the basis of that they filed an application for such
and Pfizer did not
2. They are entitled to right of priority under section 15 of the Patent
Law
3. That the Director of Patents erred in holding that their application
may not be treated as filed under sec 15 of the patent law

RESPONDENTS CLAIMS:

1. Petitioners application is not entitled to right of priority under sec 15 of the patent law
but will be treated as an ordinary application because said application was not
complete within the meaning of Rules 47 and 48 of the Revised Rules
of Practice in Patent Case when first filed on March 5, 1954.

2. petitioners' application may be considered complete only on April 14, 1954

when the certified copy of the foreign application was submitted.

ISSUE:

WON THE DIRECTOR OF PATENTS ACTED WITHIN THE SCOPE OF HIS AUTHORITY?

WON Petitioners application is entitled to right of priority under sec 15?

SC RULING:

As to the first issue, the Court ruled in the affirmative. It held that the power and
authority of the Director of Patents to decide on the petitioners appeal is laid down
by Rule 262 of the Revised Rules of Practice in Patent Cases. It held that the
Director is empowered to consider grounds which may have come to his knowledge
other than those specifically raised in an appeal He need not confine himself only to
issues invoked.

As to the second issue, the court ruled in the negative. It held that pursuant to
Rules 47 and 48 of the same, the application must be complete in order that it may
be accepted. Since the specification that was submitted on an earlier date was not
complete, there was a defect in substance.

CASE TITLE: G.R. No. L-27361 May 29, 1981

PARKE, DAVIS & COMPANY, plaintiff-appellant,

vs.
DOCTORS' PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. and V-LAB DRUGHOUSE
CORPORATION, defendants-appellees

PLAINTIFFS CLAIM:

1. The defendants are guilty of infringement of patent, by selling, causing to be

sold, using or causing to be used "Chloramphenicol Palmitate" in their
medicine called "Venimicetin Suspension"

2. The defendants are unfair competition, by concealing that said

medicine contains "Chloramphenicol", and, by deceiving and
misleading the purchasers who are trade to believe that "Venimicetin
Suspension" is covered by a compulsory license from the plaintiff.

3. the defendants have confused the substance which is the subject matter of
the complaint, namely, "Chloramphenicol Palmitate", with the substance
covered by the compulsory licensing case, namely, "Chloramphenicol", and
the Letters Patent subject of the complaint, namely, Letters Patent No. 279,
with the Letters Patent subject of the compulsory licensing case, namely,
Letters Patent No. 50.

RESPONDENTS CLAIM:

1. in advertising and selling their product "Venimicetin Suspension," never do

they state that the same contains "Chloramphenicol Palmitate

ISSUE:

WON the court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs complaint on the ground that it
lacks cause of action?

SC RULING:

The Court ruled in the affirmative. It held that It is axiomatic that in resolving a
motion to dismiss a complaint on the ground of failure to state a cause of action,
the court should hypothetically assume the truth of the factual allegations of the
complaint and determine whether on the basis thereof, the complainant is entitled
to the relief demanded. It further held that: instead of hypothetically assuming the
truth of the plaintiff's allegation that "Chloramphenicol" and "Chloramphenicol
Palmitate are two different substances, the lower court had ruled against its
veracity.

Case Title: [G.R. No. 115106. March 15, 1996]

ROBERTO L. DEL ROSARIO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND

JANITO CORPORATION, respondents.

Petitioners Claim:
1. he was a patentee of an audio equipment and improved audio

equipment commonly known as the sing-along system or karaoke

2. his own patented audio equipment and respondents sing-along system
were constructed in the same way
3. Petitioner gave 9 similarities between the respondents miyata and its
audio equipment
Respondents Claim:
1. The utility models covered by petitioners Letters of Patent were not new
2. There are 7 differences between its miyata equipment and petitioners

audio equipment
Issue: WON the petitioner is entitled to the grant of injunctive relief?
Ruling: The Court ruled in the affirmative. It held that the petitioner had
established prima facie proof of violation of his rights as patentee to justify

the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. It held that both petitioners

and respondents models involve substantially the same modes of operation
and produce substantially the same if not identical results when used.
Respondent corporation also failed to present evidence that the utility
models covered by the Letters Patents issued to petitioner were not new.
Injunction was held proper because it is a preservative remedy for the
protection of substantive rights or interests.

CASE TITLE: [G.R. No. 121867. July 24, 1997]

SMITH KLINE & FRENCH LABORATORIES, LTD., petitioner, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, BUREAU OF PATENTS, TRADEMARKS AND TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER and DOCTORS PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
PETITIONERS CLAIMS:
1. private respondent had no cause of action and lacked the capability to work
the patented product;
2. the petition failed to specifically divulge how private respondent would use or
improve the patented product
3. private respondent was motivated by the pecuniary gain attendant to the
grant of a compulsory license.
4. it was capable of satisfying the demand of the local market in the
manufacture and marketing of the medicines covered by the patented
product.

5. challenged the constitutionality of Sections 34 and 35 of R.A. No. 165

for violating the due process and equal protection clauses of the
Constitution.
6.
RESPONDENTS CLAIMS:
1. the petition was filed beyond the two-year protective period provided in
Section 34 of R.A. No. 165;

2. and that it had the capability to work the patented product or make
use of it in its manufacture of medicine.

ISSUE: WON the private respondent may be granted a compulsory license?

SC RULING:
The Court ruled in the affirmative. It held that under Sec a(2) of Article 5
of the Paris Convention member countries have the right to adopt legislative
measures to provide for the grant of compulsory licenses to prevent abuses which
might result from the exercise of the exclusive rights conferred by the patent.
Pursuant to this, RA 165 was enacted to grant of a compulsory license to afford
others an opportunity to provide the public with the quantity of the patented
product, and to prevent the growth of monopolies.

CASE TITLE: ANGELITA MANZANO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS,

and MELECIA MADOLARIA, as Assignor to NEW UNITED
FOUNDRY MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, respondents.
PETITIONERS CLAIMS:
the utility model covered by respondents letters patent, in this case, an LPG
gas burner, was not inventive, new or useful;
2. the specification of the letters patent did not comply with the requirements of
Sec. 14, RA No. 165, as amended
3. respondent was not the original, true and actual inventor nor did she derive
her rights from the original, true and actual inventor of the utility model
covered by the letters patent
1.

4. the letters patent was secured by means of fraud or misrepresentation

5. the utility model covered by the letters patent of respondent had been known
or used by others in the Philippines for more than one (1) year before she
filed her application for letters patent MAIN CONTENTION
6. the products which were produced in accordance with the utility model
covered by the letters patent had been in public use or on sale in the
Philippines for more than one (1) year before the application for patent
therefor was filed.- MAIN CONTENTION
RESPONDENTS CLAIMS:
1. The witness presented by respondent averred that: that the
company manufactured early models of single-piece types of burners where
the mouth and throat were not detachable; that in the latter part of 1978
respondent Melecia Madolaria confided in him that complaints were being
brought to her attention concerning the early models being manufactured;
that he was then instructed by private respondent to cast several
experimental models based on revised sketches and specifications; that
private respondent again made some innovations; that after a few months,
private respondent discovered the solution to all the defects of the earlier
models and, based on her latest sketches and specifications, he was able to
cast several models incorporating the additions to the innovations introduced
in the models. Various tests were conducted on the latest model in the
presence and under the supervision of Melecia Madolaria and they obtained
perfect results.

ISSUE:
WON the Letters Patent granted to the respondent were properly issued?
SC RULING:
The Court ruled in the affirmative. It upheld the decision of the Director of
Patents in finding that the evidences presented by the petitioner failed to serve
as anticipatory bars since they were all undated. The Director also ruled that
petitioners failed to prove that the patent was obtained by fraud or
misrepresentation. The Court held that The validity of the patent issued by the
Philippine Patent Office in favor of private respondent and the question over the
inventiveness, novelty and usefulness of the improved model of the LPG burner
are matters which are better determined by the Patent Office. Also, it held that
There is a presumption that the Office has correctly determined the patentability
of the model[8] and such action must not be interfered with in the absence of
competent evidence to the contrary.